Doug McGivney's Report

GOP's Deficit Reduction Plan A JOKE ?

2011-01-20T16:15:00.000-08:00

The GOP Congressional Study Committee, led by Tea Party Stalwarts, have published its Deficit Reduction Plan. It is found at:
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov

It would be a joke if it didn’t reduce veterans, educational benefits, and contains an unfunded mandate to states by shifting taxes for Medicaid to States and Localities.

It claims to save 2.5 Trillion over 10 years. That equates to 250 Billion per year. Guess what? Obama’s first budget was 400 billion less than Bush’s last budget.

*Fiscal Year 2009 - President Bush’s last budget was - 1.7 Trillion.
NOTE: President’ Bush’s last budget had the largest deficit
in the history of the world and Country!

*Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama’s first budget was - 1.3 Trillion

Please see Blog entry of October 25, 2010 about the Fox and GOtP lies about the Debt and Deficit.

Welfare Queens

2011-01-19T14:50:00.000-08:00

Teachers are the new “WELFARE QUEENS.”

Historical Note: President Ronald Reagan often referred to "Welfare Queens" usually riding Cadillacs to pick up welfare checks. One was never actually referred to, but as a political quote, it was successful in blaming Social Services help for people as the scapegoat for an inflationary economy

Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, Supercapitalism, and his most recent book, Aftershock. His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes. He recently contributed an aticle on public employees to the Huffington Post,

Robert Reich warns that public employees are convenient scapegoats for the republicans. This diverts attention from corporate executive pay and bonuses. Blaming teachers and other public employees, their unions and their benefits for causing the Great Recession seems to gather support from the Tea Party and its servant the Republican Party.

How can people believe that? They believe it because they are ill informed by the media, intentionally by Fox News and ignorantly by other media. In addition no one “sets the record straight”. For example, tenure is often explained as allowing incompetent teachers to remain employed and that myth is repeated unchallenged at all levels of news and in the new US Congress.

There was a recent statement that after 2 years a teacher in DC had a lifetime position regardless of ability. The statement was unchallenged on MSNBC. As any person familiar with the system knows, tenure gives the right to a hearing should there be a complaint made and the employee, like most public employees, cannot be arbitrarily fired without cause. If cause is shown the teacher or public employee may be subject to a range of discipline including discharge.

Teachers, their unions and other public employees should be defending the system. The system was developed to eliminate the “spoils system” and favoritism by School Boards. It is suggested that public employees and teachers can be the subject of ignorant and politically motivated charges, which in the absence of protection, lessens employee security, rewards sycophants and destroys the professionalism of teachers.

Below is Robert Reich’s Article:

In 1968, 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually Memphis heard the grievances of its sanitation workers. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation have benefited from the job protections they've earned.

But now the right is going after public employees. Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.

It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work -- sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees -- to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big. Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.

But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions. They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts. The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college.

Compare apples to apples and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)

Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pension’s obligations are out of control. Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension. But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous. And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.

Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans. The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.

The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights -- Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights -- Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana -- have small deficits of less than 10 percent.

Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers and for many state workers across the country as well.

But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees. It's only average workers -- both in the public and the private sectors -- who are being called upon to sacrifice. This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another -- comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits -- than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Seniors and the Low Income Worker - NO HELP

2010-12-15T11:05:00.000-08:00

Low Income earners and seniors

The focus upon the high income earners from the Compromise Tax Cut has missed the focus upon the miserable treatment of low income earners and seniors.

Consider the implications of the analysis from Huffington Post by Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute, which is found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/any-payroll-tax-cut-shoul_b_796741.html

Basically, the 2% payroll tax cut exchange for the existing Making Work Pay program, takes away the help giving those earning under $20,000 per year and their taxes increase. The Making Work Pay program gives all workers 400 dollars and couples 800 dollars. That means the low income earner (less than 20,000). A 2% payroll tax reduction on less than $20,000 amounts to less than 400 dollars. $20,000.00 is the break even point.

The conclusion is that high income earners receive thousands in tax cuts and the lowest income earners will pay more. This GOP forced proposal shows its TEA PARTY attitude,

Further, the 2% is a cut on some money that goes to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund. In many ways it is a good idea in that it is both simulative and helpful for middle class wage earners. I am sure that the President’s thinking is to correct that deficit down the road. However it is clear that GOP and especially its Tea Party constituency has a goal of limiting Social Security benefits. Please note that Congressman Elect Gibson was quoted at a GOP meeting as reviewing the retirement age because people are living longer. Please see:

http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2010/12/11/news/doc4d03033cd26fd206187188.txt

The fact that Congressman Elect Gibson he has a “20 year and out” pension which will now be augmented by his Congressional retirement program further shows the GOTP thinking.

What can be done:

Write of call our Senators and Current and New Congressman:

Congressman Murphy’s office in Saratoga Springs at 518-581-8247.

Senator Gillibrand’s office at 202-224-4451 or

Senator Schumer's office at 202-224-6542.

Doug McGivney

YES WE STILL CAN

2010-12-09T17:16:00.000-08:00

NO WE WON'T

AND THEY DIDN'T

Although President Obama was able to get a compromise with the GOP leadership, it continues wealth distribution upward and only temporarily helps middle class Americans. It may be the best that can be obtained, but it is hoped that the Democratic Congressional leaders can get A NEW DEAL.

One GOP assertion is the idea that the rich are “job creators”. They are not. Most of the high earners are Wall Street operators, who are getting the best of the GOP deal, are "finance managers" who only incidently (30% of business) invest in companies that are going to manufacture something. They sell short, speculate on currency differentials or gamble with hedge funds. Trading "credit default swaps"; creating & selling "collateral backed securities” and selling securities short; does nothing to grow the economy or to create jobs.(1)

These investments are big stakes gambling. If the investment firms and the "high earners" used their own money, no one could complain - or even care. However, they use bank deposits, 401k money, retirement funds and other “public” money. When these bets fail – the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bush administration protect them. Bush’s TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program) did not protect the depositor, or the people with IRAs and 401Ks, or even the stock holders in some companies. However, the money managers continued to receive billion of dollars in bonuses much of it from TARP. (2) It is these millionairs that are the receivers of the big tax cuts.

What can be done? Many have sent me Rabbi Michael Lerner’s recent article in the Washington Post that suggests action. That action perceives leadership failures of President Obama and the need to consider alternatives and seek new leadership. His admittedly sad recognition of the leadership failures of President Obama leads to the thinking of moving on without him. I do not yet agree with him but it is hard not understand his point. The Lerner article may be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120304148.html

We need a NEW – NEW DEAL. The GOP continues class warfare on the middle class. I understand the President's dilemma and fear of cutting off benefits for the 2 million unemployed and the reinstatement of taxes on the middle class. However, kicking the can down the road is not, in my opinion, the answer. The 7 or 8 Billion dollar deficit caused by the compromise saddles the middle class wage earners and not the future bonus millionaires.

When to hold them and when to fold them is always a tricky issue. We know that the President has his heart in the right place. He did get some real progressive benefits. However, I am afraid that we are just postponing the inevitable and that is the need to change the continued Corporate, Tea party and GOBP agenda. What happens when there is a need to increase the Debt limit. Will the GOP compromise? I suspect not and then we are arguing about cutting Medicare and Social Security. Should we not be discussing that issue before the compromise not after. President Obama and others have referred to the GOP has holding the unemployed and middle class hostage. The so called compromise does not release the hostages, but gives only a temporary reprive.

Political action is suggested as the partial answer in David Koren’s new book Agenda for a New Economy. It is an answer to consider – and that consideration is needed now. His long and short term goals need examination by all. In the meantime, political action is needed now. To the question of whether political action can overcome overwhelming corporate power – as Jefferson, Washington and Adams overcame the overwhelming Monarchy Power – the answer is YES WE CAN!

We need a long term plan but right now we need to call and encourage our Senators and Congressman Murphy. Urge them to work with Vermont Senator Sanders to get a NEW DEAL.

References:
(1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40504582/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
(2) The Big Short by Michael Lewis; When Genius failed by Roger Lowenstein, Agenda for a New Economy by David Korten
(3) The New York Times, Global Ed. www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html
Pay czar: ‘Ill advised’ bonuses at 17 bailed-out banks. msnbc.com news services. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38376709/ns/business-us_business/

How the Fox & GOTP Lies about National Debt & Deficits;

2010-10-25T15:50:00.000-07:00

A Grand Old Tea Party friend of mine intentionally confronts me with Fox News and Gibson stuff. The kidding does not bother me but the fact that he really believes it, does. The confusion intentionally spread by, Fox News, the TEA Party & GOBP often confuse “National Debt” and “deficit”. That repeated confusion may be affecting this election.

Here are the actual facts. I will include reliable source references at the end.

1. The National Dept., comprised of all money the USA owes and is the accumulation of the deficits that are budgeted and incurred each Federal Fiscal year is: 12.4 Trillion. When President Bush started the National Dept was 5.7 Trillion dollars with Clinton budgets having surpluses so that the National Dept was going down.

2. The Deficit is the amount spent or budgeted to be spent over the expected revenues. Each budget year has its own deficit (or under President Clinton – a surplus. )

a. Fiscal Year 2009 President Bush’s last budget 1.7 Trillion
b. Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama’s first budget 1.3 Trillion
NOTE: a. President’ Bush’s last budget had the largest deficit in History!

b. President Obama reduced the budget and spent less than Bush did in his first year in office.,

So, when your right wing friends state that Obama had a “ Trillion dollar deficit” as my friend did - the answer was YES - but it was still 400 Billion less than Bush’s. Like my friend and Fox News – the facts don’t keep them from stating facts that don’t exist, but you will feel better and there may be other people that will listen.

References:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_debt_by_U.S

See Chart below showing:

Biggest deficit spenders and National Debt builders since Presidents Truman and Roosevelt both of whom had to pay for WW II

Ronald Reagan
George Bush
George W. Bush

Compare: Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner

2010-10-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

Recent Gibson Campaign Ads indicate without any proof that Speaker Pelosi is somehow very bad and so Congressman Murphy must be bad too. Neither Speaker Pelosi nor Minority Leader Boehner are "bad" but their policies are extremely different.

Lets compare her to Minority Leader Boehner who has campaigned for Mr. Gibson and is slated to become the Speaker of the House, if Mr. Gibson wins and the GOP take it over:

Minority Leader, John Boehner
"HELL NO WE WON'T"

and doesn't support:

Social Security, as we know it
He wants to "reform" Social Security

HELL NO WE WON'T
and he doesn't
Support Health and Insurance Reform
He led House voting against reform which:
- Stops Ins. Cos using pre-existing conditions even against children
- Stops Ins.Cos dropping young adults from parents health ins. policies
- Increased Medicare Spending from 529 Billion to 929 billion.
- Eliminating the "donut hole" in Medicare D and saved Seniors $ thousands.
- Limits the growth in medical & insurance costs, so much so that the non-partisan
- The BiPartisan Cogressional Budget Office found that it leads to deficit and debt reduction.

HELL NO WE WON"T
and he doesn't support
The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act>

He lead his minority to oppose
-creating 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,

-closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas and reduces the deficit.

-included $10 billion in funding to save teacher jobs;

-included $16.1 billion in health assistance to the states that, by reducing shortfalls, will help keep many others on the job, including police officers and firefighters.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

YES WE CAN(and did)

This is the Congresswoman and grandmother signing an education bill which became law that:

- saved or created 319,000 jobs, including 161,000 teacher jobs,

- closed tax loopholes that encouraged corporations to ship American jobs overseas and reduces the deficit.

-The bill includes $10 billion in funding to save teacher jobs;

-and $16.1 billion in health assistance to the states that, by reducing shortfalls, will help keep many others on the job, including police officers and firefighters.

She had been selected by a very diverse group of Representatives, comprised mostly of men. She has been a leading representative in the House of Representatives for many years and so was and is known for her smarts, diplomacy and knowledge. The allegation is that Congressman Scott Murphy follows her leadership. Thank goodness he mostly has. As an independent thinking man, he has not always agreed and has insisted upon matters important to the District. Remember, he voted no on Health and Insurance Reform until his ideas were included.

Mr. Gibson, on the other hand has been the recepient of Mr. Boehner's fund raising and has accepted advertising from a Corporate front group named 60 Plus Association. That organization has been funded by the World's Largest Pharmaceutical Corporations

Conclusion:

Mr. Murphy working with YES WE CAN Speaker Pelosi is a better choice than Mr. Gibson working with HELL NO WE WON'T Mr. Boehner.

Gibson, Plus 60 attacks on Congressman Scott Murphy

2010-10-06T16:19:00.000-07:00

A recent TV ad attacking Scott Murphy was sponsored by 60 Plus, The irony is that 60 Plus, pretends to be an alternative to AARP, however it fights for corporate rights not Senior rights!

In actuality, this a GOP front for corporate interest such as Big Pharma, in general and Pfizer in particular. . There is further irony or duplicity in the fact that Pfizer recently bought Wyest and discharged 18 000 US employees. Another irony is the fact that Pfizer used President Bush's "tarp " money to finance the takeover. Pfizer, has extensive off shore operation.

The ads are against Scott and 16 other Democratic Congress Members. The ads are blatantly false in every way. In general, they do not represent seniors or have an organization to do so. In particular and thanks to the investigative reporting of:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/misleading-onslaught-by-60-plus/

the actual lies are debunked.

One lie used against Congressman Murphy is that the Medical Care reform act caused a 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare. It didn’t! “CBO predicts that federal outlays for Medicare in fiscal year 2020 will be $929 billion, compared with projected spending of $519 billion this year”. So the program isn’t being cut below existing levels, or even stopped in its tracks.

Other references are:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association

http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/422/

I suggest that if the people in the ads are not familiar in your neighborhood, just look at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ You can buy “generic photos on line.

It is hoped that the people will see thru the lies and distortions and re-elect Scott Murphy to continue the progress made in the past 2 years.

The Education and Middle Class Crisis

2010-04-23T08:41:00.000-07:00

The Education and Middle Class Crisis

The reported direction of the NYS budget negotiations is wrong. That direction focuses on spending cuts and tax shifts. It will worsen the NYS Economy and deprive our kids of the education they need and deserve. The most devastating cuts are primarily in education. Those cuts will deprive our schools of the proper teaching of our children with special needs and of providing of other kids from essential programs. In addition to the catastrophic effect upon a generation of kids – the middle class will bear additional tax burdens.

Why?

There is the Great Recession. It was brought on by a Wall Street that is even now making more money than before. Regardless of the reason for the Great Recession, it has ruined the economy and reduced revenue to NYS and its localities. Below is a chart from Fiscal Policy Institute showing what has happened on Wall Street. Huge bonuses have been and continue to be taken regardless of whether or not there are profits and most recently regardless of whether the profits are from taxpayers bail out money.

The result has been to cripple the economy and because of declining tax revenues the NYS budget is a particular challenge. The indications from the negotiations in Albany are that the crisis is being “fixed” by taking away education from our children and taxing the middle class. Real Estate School taxes are going up in all districts. As the included chart shows, the middle class already pay a bigger portion of state and local taxes than do the high earners.

The amount of money estimated to hold the schools harmless is less than 3 billion dollars. That is but a small portion of the 2009 Wall Street profits or bonuses. A 15 % tax upon the 20.2 billion dollars given in bonuses, if dedicated to elementary and high schools would prevent raising real estate taxes or cutting programs and firing teachers. It seems only fair that Wall Street help the economy, which was wrecked by its wild gambling, but saved by our tax dollars in the biggest bank bailout in history. It not suggested that a 15% percent increase be imposed but the idea gives an example of the availability of money from sources which are better able to pay the additional taxes.

Current pervasive budget thinking gives no thought to the middle class. Current thought is to cut spending upon programs upon which the middle class depends and raising the middle class real estate taxes. Where does this thinking come from?

The simple answer is IGNORANCE. The more complicated answer is a decade of propaganda and myths that have been propagated by special interests. These myths must be dispelled and the truth must become common knowledge.

How?

Each of us must become familiar with governmental budgets and knowledgeable enough to put the lie to myths and misinformation. We cannot rely upon the media as it is as much responsible for the myths and misinformation as the special interest and those who do their bidding.
What must be done? The first step is education – our own.

There are many sources but I recommend the Web Site of Fiscal Policy Institute. This is an organization which gathers data on taxes and budgets. It furnishes analysis and projections. The Manhattan Institute does basically the same thing. Both have a “view” but we must be critical readers so we can use the data. Locally we have James Sheldon’s “Little Town View” which also collects useful data and analysis on the local setting.

Fiscal Policy Institute: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/
Manhattan Institute: http://www.empirecenter.org/
Little Town View: http://www.littletownviews.com/

The following are a few ideas that we must use to persuade others to protect our schools and the middle class.

Myth # 1
Taxes cannot be raised as we are already taxed too much.

Truth
Taxes are too high on the Middle Class and the Home Owner because of the dependence upon real estate and sales taxes. High end earners are not taxed as much.

Taxes are going to be raised on the property owner and the Middle Class by the current NYS Budget. The Albany budget creates massive tax shifts to those least able to afford the increases. Almost all the recent headlines are about the increase of School taxes made necessary by the
NYS’ “spending cuts”. This means higher school taxes. In addition the middle class is paying more than its share of the tax burden.

The issue is not whether there will be tax increases – there will be. The question is who is to pay? Under the current budget considerations the middle class and the real estate tax payer will bear the brunt of the increases. Who is better able to pay the increase? Should it be the middle class taxpayer? Should it be the home owner?

Consider the following information from FPI. http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/

If you earn $ 33,000 – $56,000 your state and local tax rate is 11.6% If you earn $ 633,000.00 + your state and local tax rate is 7.2%

The following is the chart is the source of the information and is from FPI.

MYTH #2
A tax on high earners they will cause them to leave NYS.

TRUTH
In 2002, a 3 year temporary income tax increase was imposed upon high earners. The following years the number of high earners increased by over 100,000. This happened in spite of dire warnings by Governor Pataki when the legislature was able to override Governor Pataki and increased school funding with budget with a temporary “millionaires tax”.

What is the solution? The following are suggested by the Fiscal Policy Institute:

Enact temporary tax measures that recapture some of Wall Street’s profit windfall to spur Main Street’s recovery.
Close loopholes and reform New York’s tax system to make it fairer and more effective.
Support federal action needed for more fiscal relief, job creation, and ensure corporate taxation. ( note: The House of Representatives has passed such a bill but it has been blocked in the Senate for several months)

Note: The entire paper supporting the above is found at:
New York Has the Ways and Means: How and Why Wall Street Should Give Back to Main Street;
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/CWF_FPI_NewYorkHasTheWaysAndMeans.pdf

What can we do?

We must educate ourselves so we will not be mislead by those interested in the status quo. Then we need to write, e-mail, blog, write to elected officials, write letters to the editors, picket, march and boycott. The status of the middle class is at stake, if not for us – for our children. We must begin now. Who is “we”? Each person effected and our organizations like unions, School Board members and leaders; as well as music and physical education boosters.

If you are interested in joining me and some others to promote a better budget, better schools, and fairer taxes, please let me know at:
mcgivneydoug@berk.com

Doug McGivney

Response to Faso Defenders

2010-04-05T18:31:00.000-07:00

There were two letters to Register Star editors criticizing my response to Mr. Faso’s Feb. 15th Op Ed article urging teachers, public employees and schools to make “give backs” in order to help with our current financial woes. One called me a “typical radical Marxist liberal” and the other suggested I have a “socialist philosophy”. Mr. Shanahan also criticizes me for attacking Mr. Faso’s legal work as an attorney for Widewaters/Kohls IDA application.

None of the characterizations or criticisms is true.

I do not question Mr. Faso’s ethics as a lawyer or lobbyist and both are honorable professions and he is certainly doing an effective and competent job.

My point is that Mr. Faso’s Editorial piece is consistent with has conservative principals even when speaking as a citizen/politician. When Mr. Faso speaks out as a citizen/politician – his views needs to be viewed with knowledge of his corporate ties. His philosophy is consistent with protecting those with large incomes. It was his article that mentions the $ 750,000.00 per year earners and suggests we are “extremely dependant” upon them and instead urges reduction in schools spending, and “give-backs” by public employees, especially naming teachers.

I continue to find it ironic (although consistent) that Mr. Faso urges a 3 million dollar tax break for Widewaters/Kohls and yet for the $ 2 million Columbia County short fall, he urges teachers and public employees to give back negotiated gains. Worse yet, schools themselves must cut back vital programs and lay off teachers.

The issue isn’t whether there will be increased taxes. There will be tax increases as indicated in every school budget being proposed. The question is: who should pay the increased taxes? Mayor Bloomberg’s January Financial Plan for 2010-14 estimates that 2009 Wall Street profits were a record $58 billion, nearly three times the previous record (2006).

Again, who is better able to pay increased taxes? The home owner who may have decreased income but increased assessed value on the home or someone who enjoys a large income and even an increased income?

Mr. Faso’ most recent defender indicates that the high earners will leave NY. However, Fiscal Policy Institute reported after the 2003 millionaires tax; really a surcharge:
…. employment in the state grew each year that the surcharge was in place, and the number of high-income returns grew steadily from about 245,000 in 2002 to an estimated 420,000 in 2007.

Again, who is better able to pay the inevitable increased taxes?

Doug McGivney
Kinderhook

Response to Op Ed piece by John Faso in 2/10 Register Star

2010-02-13T14:01:00.000-08:00

I disagree with Mr. Faso’s recent “op ed piece” in the Register Star. Mr. Faso’s position regarding NY’s funding woes is ironic but consistent with conservative/republican view.

His concern for those earning over $ 750,000.00 per year is consistent with his recent application for 2 million dollars in tax breaks for Widewaters. However his suggestion that the 3 million dollars due to teachers and other workers be given back is ironic when considering his lobbyist/lawyer role in the application for that $ 2 million in corporate tax breaks.

His advocacy of corporate welfare for Widewaters is consistent with right wing attitudes. He places New York’s funding woes on “ increased demands for K-12 education spending, Medicaid costs, and health and pension costs for public workers."

Public employees and eduction are easy scapegoats for conservative commentators; it seems easy to blame education costs and employees for our economic woes. I suggest that the real reasons for our economic woes are decreased federal funds caused by bailing out banking gamblers, deficit-causing tax breaks for those people earning over $ 750,000.00 per year and the conduct of two wars – one of which was a preemptive war of choice.

Our teachers deserve the money they earn trying to improve the next generation. Even Mr. Faso’s concern about 3 million dollars in “give backs” pales in comparison to the 175 million paid a single Health Insurance executive. It is also a tiny percentage of the bonuses being claimed by many of those earning over 750,000.00 on Wall Street. Billions of tax dollars given for those big earners does not seem to be a problem for the conservative, Mr. Faso.

Why not join President Obama and many others in calling for the return of bonus money by the corporate gamblers instead of the teacher's "give backs" of health and retirement benefits?

Why should a highway worker have to give back a raise that is small because of the increase in his/her health insurance or the increased co-pays and deductions?

Except for “ K-12 Education”, the other two woes quoted by the Mr. Faso in the Register Star are related to the high cost of Health Insurance. The cause is high insurance is not necessarily due to high cost of health care. The physicians, nurses and other health care professionals receive only a part of the health insurance premium. Insurance companies get the rest and much of that goes to obscene executive pay.

Perhaps, Mr. Faso’s photo at last summers “Tea Party event” shows his consistent conservative attitude toward Health Insurance Reform.

Why not join President Obama in seeking Health Insurance Reform?

Why not join President Obama in seeking a return of the bonus money taken by the banking gamblers instead of tapping teachers pay and benefits.

Who is better able to pay for what our economic “woes”?

Consider the following:

Gross domestic product and historically high productivity growth should have raised paychecks up and down the income ladder, but instead the benefits of that growth have bypassed most of the people who made it possible. From The State of Working America found at http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/.

Also, 34.6% of all income growth over the past three decades has gone to the top one-tenth of 1% of all earners. By contrast, the bottom 90% of all earners has collectively seen only 15.9% of all income growth over the same period. The above information is taken from the Economic Policy Institute Web Site found at:
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/a_long_and_persistent_middle-class_squeeze/

Ethics Rot in Albany

2010-02-04T12:33:00.000-08:00

Governor Patterson’s veto of the ‘so called’ Ethics proposal is based upon common sense, good government and is courageous. To often legislation is passed with high sounding titles but are just political slogans not intended to change anything. Calling something “Ethics reform” doesn’t make it so. Would the legislatures Ethics law prevent another Joe Bruno” NO. Would it prevent “pay to play” politics in Albany? NO. Would it prevent government by special interest? NO. It actually uses the word “confidentiality or “confidential” 18 times. It also creates a commission – with 4 being appointed by the legislature. Still the fox guarding the hen house! As Governor Patterson points out in his Veto message:
“ … the lack of separation between members and their appointees was demonstrated only recently when the appointee of the former Senate Majority Leader determine it appropriate to hold a fundraiser for his appointer’s legal defense from public corruption charges. There is simply nothing in this bill that would alter that astounding level of coziness between enforcer and legislator including the making of political contributions.… “
Of course, you will hear that the Governor vetoed the sound bite: “Ethics Reform”. This latest round of Albany gridlock is being treated by the legislature like they have traditionally done. Each will go home and brag about passing something called “ethics reform”. The bill numbers are: A.9544/S.6457 and they are available on line. You can read for yourself and determine that even if passed “Ethics Rot Remains”.

A full copy of Governor Patterson’ Veto message is attached.

Doug McGivney

VETO MESSAGE - No. 1
TO THE ASSEMBLY:
I am returning herewith, without my approval, the following bill:
Assembly Bill Number 9544, entitled:
“AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to establishing the
executive ethics and compliance commission; to amend the legisla-
tive law, in relation to the creation of the New York state
commission on lobbying ethics and compliance; to amend the legis-
lative law, in relation to establishing the legislative office of
ethics investigation and the joint legislative commission on
ethics standards and to repeal certain provisions of such law
relating to ethics; and to amend the public officers law, in
relation to ethics reports; to amend the legislative law and the
public officers law, in relation to financial disclosure of public
officers; to amend the election law, in relation to a state board
of elections enforcement unit and counsel, personal use of
campaign funds, filing requirements, political communication,
independent expenditure reporting, enforcement proceeding and
penalties for violations; to repeal certain provisions of the
election law relating to filing of statements; to repeal certain
provisions of the legislative law relating to prohibited activ-
ities of legislative employees; and providing for the repeal of
certain provisions upon the expiration thereof”
NOT APPROVED
At the opening of the 233rd Legislative Session, I said in my State of
the State address that we must immediately deal with the chronic abuse
of power. The continuing experiences of outside influence and internal
decay have bred cynicism and prompted scorn from the people we repre-
sent. I called for addressing the unethical conduct and bad acts that
have embarrassed us all by adopting an ambitious proposal to reform
Albany that I presented to the Legislature last spring, and again
respectfully submitted in revised form with my budget for Fiscal Year
2010-11. The centerpiece of that proposal is a truly independent ethics
enforcement agency, which would apply one standard to both the Legisla-
ture and Executive, and would be beholden to neither.
The Legislature has responded by passing its own ethics and lobbying
legislation, ostensibly to “provide more independence for the govern-
mental structures that address issues of ethics” and “promote compliance
with and enforcement of campaign finance laws” to expose the pay-to-play
atmosphere with additional transparencies. While I passionately support
the Legislature’s stated goals, I am returning this bill with my disap-
proval not only because a number of its provisions are seriously flawed,
but also because of what this bill is missing.
The bill makes significant changes to the structures for ethics advice
and enforcement, but it manages to make such wholesale revisions without
addressing the most glaring shortcomings of the current regime. It would
establish a new State Commission on Lobbying to be known as the “New
York State Commission on Lobbying Ethics and Compliance” to oversee
ethics compliance by the Executive Branch, replacing the current Commis-
sion of Public Integrity. The bill also would establish a new “Joint
Legislative Commission on Ethics Standards” to replace the current
Legislative Ethics Commission, and would further establish a new “Legis-
lative Office of Ethics Investigations” responsible for assisting the
Legislature in carrying out its investigatory and enforcement responsi-
bilities with respect to ethical standards. The executive directors of
these new entities would be appointed by a majority vote of the commis-
sioners and would serve fixed terms. The executive directors could be
removed only for cause, by a majority vote of the commissioners. The
legislation also would mandate the institution of an enforcement unit
within the State Board of Elections (SBOE) and require that at least 35
percent of the SBOE’s annual budget be dedicated to the unit to promote
increased enforcement of campaign finance laws.
I am encouraged by certain aspects of this bill, including increased
penalties for non-compliance, enhanced reporting of certain outside
business, a revision of the definition of widely attended events and
clarification of the nominal gift amount, that indicate the Legislature
is serious about its interest in such reforms and recognizes that we
must address these very important issues together. I stand ready to work
with the Legislature to build a system of truly independent enforcement
that is premised upon transparent disclosure and ends the unfair and
disproportionate influence of special interests and lobbyists in our
State Capitol. But unfortunately, I cannot accomplish those goals by
signing this legislation, which falls far short of what the people of
New York seek and deserve.
This bill contains many serious deficiencies, which either fail to
improve current law or substantially limit the effectiveness of the new
requirements the Legislature seeks to impose. For example:
The bill fails to address the most glaring shortfall of the present
system for ethics enforcement: the absence of any independent oversight
of the Legislature. The current system, by which the Legislature polices
itself, has been a dismal failure. Neither the Legislative Ethics
Commission, nor its predecessor the Legislative Ethics Committee, has
filed a single notice of reasonable cause - that is, it has never
charged anyone with any misconduct whatsoever - while several legisla- ______ ___
tors and other State officers have been criminally charged for having
misused their offices corruptly. Indeed, the Legislative Ethics Commis-
sion still has not been fully constituted - nearly three years after it
was created. The sponsors contend that the New Legislative Office of
Ethics Investigations will strengthen the weakest link in the ethics
chain, because it would be comprised of persons who are not members of
the Legislature, although they would be appointed by legislators. But
the current Legislative Ethics Commission, if ever fully formed, would
have a majority of non-members, a fact that has not heretofore led to
one iota of enforcement. Indeed, the lack of separation between members
and their appointees was demonstrated only recently when the appointee
of the former Senate Majority Leader to this body determined it appro-
priate to hold a fundraiser for his appointer’s legal defense from
public corruption charges. There is simply nothing in this bill that
would alter that astounding level of coziness between enforcer and
legislator, including the making of political contributions.
The ultimate decision-maker under this bill for legislative ethics -
the Joint Legislative Commission on Ethics Standards - would actually
represent an increase in the influence of legislative members. The
current Legislative Ethics Commission is required to have a non-legisla-
tor majority of 5-4. The new Joint Commission in evenly split, 4-4.
Thus, under present law, a majority of non-members could impose disci-
pline over the uniform wishes of the legislators to the contrary. This
could not happen under the new body that would be created by this bill.
In sum, the notion of legislative ethics reform reflected in this bill
is a weaker adjudicative body, more heavily dominated by the Legisla-
ture. It is difficult to imagine, therefore, on what basis one could
conclude that the new ethics overseer proposed in this bill - even if
the Legislature got around to appointing all of its members - could
provide effective enforcement. Even with respect to the Executive
Branch, the legislation would continue the practice by which individuals
under an enforcement body’s jurisdiction appoint the members of that
body. I have proposed legislation that would deprive me of the right to
appoint the entity that would oversee ethics in the Executive Branch. I
simply ask that the Legislature accept the same basic principle.
The bill would purport to provide greater disclosure for the Legisla-ture, while actually shielding legislators’ outside clients fromsunlight. Full disclosure would reduce any appearance of impropriety,supply information to the public and aid in detecting violations.Instead, the sponsors have defended the continued omission from the lawof a requirement that lawyers and other members of the Legislature whoare employed in so-called “protected professions” fully disclose theirclients. Thus, under the proposed bill a legislator could earn hundredsof thousands from a client with a direct interest in legislation, yetnot have to disclose that fact. Such concealment is defended by claimsof “attorney-client privilege,” but that is simply a smokescreen, as theprivilege does not apply to the client’s identity. See Priest v. _____________Hennessey, 427 N.Y.S.2d 110 (4th Dep’t), aff’d 51 N.Y.2d 62 (1980).__________ _____
Further, New York Disciplinary Rule Section 7-102(A)(3) provides that a
lawyer shall not “conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the
lawyer is required by law to reveal.”
The bill provides fixed terms for the executive directors of the
ethics enforcers. While it makes sense to provide for fixed terms for
the commissioners so they can be independent, the role of an executive
director is to carry out the policies set by the commission. Providing a
fixed term, and thereby making it difficult to terminate the executive
director’s employment, creates an unwarranted risk of a demagogue or
rogue ignoring the commissioners’ express wishes. Moreover, towards the
end of a fixed term, an executive director could jettison his or her
purported independence as he or she networks for future employment
opportunities. Indeed, the most recent crisis at the Public Integrity
Commission involved allegations of misconduct by the executive director.
This bill would not aid in the removal of the director in such a case;
it would hinder it. There is a simple solution to this problem: create a
truly independent Board to oversee the work of the director.
The bill as drafted would weaken the investigative and enforcement
authority within the proposed Commission on Lobbying Ethics and Compli-
ance by limiting the authority of lobbyist enforcement solely to the
Legislature, as opposed to the current structure within the Commission
on Public Integrity that applies investigative and enforcement powers
evenly in respect to lobbying the Executive and Legislative Branches. It
appears that the drafters of this bill exclude any investigatory author-
ity by the Commission on Lobbying Ethics and Compliance with respect to
the Executive Branch. Since it is a well established principle that
agencies may only act in ways that are within their specific grants of
authority, any actions taken outside such authority may be ultra vires.
This bill makes some improvements to enforcement of our campaign
finance laws and improves certain disclosure requirements; however, it
lacks the key element to real campaign finance reform—reducing the
corrupting influence of money in our election system. New York State’s
campaign finance laws are among the weakest in the United States,
including having some of the highest contribution limits and lowest
participation percentages. Moreover, prodigious loopholes, coupled with
inadequate enforcement, allow these already weak laws to be subverted
with ease. Enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform is critical
to ensuring integrity in government by stemming the influence of wealthy
special interests in elections and the legislative process. There are
no reductions whatsoever in New York’s high and, in some cases, unlimit-
ed campaign contribution limits. While New York has some of the highest
campaign contribution limits in the nation, it has the lowest campaign
participation. That is because ordinary New Yorkers cannot compete with
monied interest who individually can contribute over $50,000 to a candi-
date for Governor, or Political Action Committees that can give unlimit-
ed contributions to a candidate or party committee’s so called “house-__
keeping account.” In order to encourage more participation and,
therefore, more interest in the election process, my bill would cap
contribution limits at $1,000 and include a four to one public matching
system, capped at $250 per contribution, which would allow more people
to participate in elections in a meaningful way. And we must ensure that
enforcement of the campaign finance laws is carried out in a non-parti-
san, fair and equitable manner. I am willing to negotiate different
contribution levels and to separate a new public campaign financing
regime from an Ethics Bill, but I believe there must be substantial
reductions in the amount of permissible contributions. And whatever
bill emerges, it is important that it ensure that enforcement of our
campaign finance laws is carried out without affording advantage to the
party in power.
The problems contained in this bill are not trivial. They would under-
mine efforts to signal to New Yorkers that all public officers and
employees are adhering to high standards of ethical conduct and account-
ability.
I said in my State of the State address that we must all reflect on
how different our position and standing would be today if we had earlier
instituted adequate procedures to address the unethical conduct and bad
acts that have embarrassed us all. Now, the public wants and deserves
bolder and more decisive initiatives to win back its trust. The goal we
share is to bring fairness and openness to government. There is, partic-
ularly now, an urgent need to be able to point to rules and structures
that address impropriety promptly and fairly, and minimize the potential
for conflicts of interest.
I am told, by some who profess expertise in these matters, that by
disapproving this legislation I am making the “perfect the enemy of the
good.” I must respectfully disagree. I am not opposed to taking limited
and positive steps towards improving the ethical climate of New York
government, whenever such opportunities present themselves. Indeed, upon
its delivery, I will sign a separate bill (S.6439/A.9559) that would
prohibit public officers from using state property, services or other
resources for private business purposes. It would further seek to end
the use by public officials of State property, services or other
resources for private business or other compensated non-governmental
purposes that deprives the government of $1,000 or more. That bill would
close a small but dangerous hole in our ethics laws, and therefore
represents a positive improvement.
The present bill, however, is another matter. It would enact a funda-
mental and complex restructuring of the State’s ethics enforcers for the
second time in three years, and yet leave the most fundamental shortcom-
ing of the current system untouched. It would purport to offer the
public greater disclosure, and then allow the same legislators who claim
to create genuine transparency to hide their conflicts of interest from
public view. In sum, it would trade a historic opportunity for the
institutionalization of false promises. That is not the progress that
New Yorkers want to see.
Many of those who now urge me to support this bill held quite a
different view very recently. In the past year, the League of Women
Voters testified before the Legislature in favor of “combin(ing) the
(ethics) oversight functions into one new entity”; and said such entity
would be a “critical step in the right direction” and that ethics reform
“will not be achieved without enforcement by an adequately funded inde- _____________________ _____
pendent body.” The Citizens Union echoed the need for an independent and
unified enforcer. And the New York Public Interest Research Group has
pointed out persuasively that “no one can argue that self-regulation (by
the Legislature) has worked.” Yet these same advocates now would have
me sign a bill that would create a trifurcated ethics enforcement
regime, and that would leave in place precisely what they have previous-
ly condemned: self-policing by the Legislature. I do not know why they
have abandoned their earlier views, so recently professed. But I have
not abandoned mine.
Some in the Legislature already have announced that they would vote to
override my veto, and thereby establish the deeply flawed arrangements
of the legislation before me into law. Under our Constitution, that is
their prerogative if they can secure the requisite number of votes. But
while the Legislature can turn this bill into law if it wishes, there
are some things that are beyond its power to accomplish in this manner.
An override will not regain it the public’s trust. It will not make an
ethics enforcement body truly independent when it is beholden to its
appointing authority. It cannot somehow reverse the weak record of self-
enforcement by the Legislature. And it cannot create transparency while
hiding the facts most significant to the public.
It is time to try a better approach: to dispense once and for all with
the deck chair-rearranging on New York’s ethical Titanic. I call upon
the Legislature, both majority and minority conferences, to work togeth-
er with me on a bill that would restore the integrity and trust of our
citizens, and that would no longer allow all of us to be painted in a
bad light because of a few bad apples. This is the appropriate moment to
enact into law a truly independent ethics enforcer, apply a unified
standard to the Legislature and Executive alike, end our system of pay-
to-play politics, increase transparency and accountability, strengthen
enforcement in a non-partisan manner and allow the people of this State
to understand fully the conflicts and incentives under which their
elected representatives operate.
The bill is disapproved. (signed) DAVID A. PATERSON

Profile by Robert Lachman of the Register Star

2010-01-06T15:26:00.000-08:00

McGivney reflects on terms, accomplishments as supervisor
By Robert Lachman
Published:
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:14 AM EST

Kinderhook Town Supervisor Doug McGivney is the only Columbia County Democrat to be elected to his post five times in a row. An unabashed liberal in a sea of conservative Republicans, McGivney had high hopes of winning the supervisor job one more time in the November municipal elections, but it was not to be. McGivney, who said he was outspent 2 to 1 by
incoming supervisor Pat Grattan and the Republican machine, lost the election by a landslide. But, even though he lost, he remains an upbeat, forward thinking man who loves politics and will do whatever he can to serve the people in his district. McGivney got into politics after a long career as a lawyer. He was a Health Department attorney whose primary function was the prosecution of physicians, hospitals and nursing homes for unethical medical conduct. He rose through the ranks and became the principal attorney and bureau director of the Bureau of Administrative Hearings until 1993 when he left to start his own general practice in Kinderhook.
In 1997 he ran for supervisor and lost, returning in 1999 to become the longest-running Democratic supervisor in county history, he told the Register-Star. “I’ve always been involved in politics and I always had the idea I’d like to be supervisor,” McGivney said from his home in Kinderhook. “I kept winning and that in itself is unusual because Kinderhook is a
Republican town.” When he won his first two-year term in 1999 McGivney ran on two major issues, the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan for the town and the creation of a town recreation facility. And though the recreation facility, which included an indoor swimming pool, was defeated in a referendum vote, he was able to build Volunteer’s Park which incorporated soccer fields, Little league baseball diamonds and picnic areas. Additional land and buildings were also acquired to create the Dorothy Ostrowsky Senior Center. It is now home to the Tri-Village Seniors organization which boasts more than 100 members.
“I think Volunteer’s Park is my greatest accomplishment,” said McGivney. “But I’m also pretty proud of the Planning Board doing the Comprehensive Plan, which has helped significantly with the traffic.” McGivney also oversaw the creation of the Hannaford Plaza shopping center which enlarged existing businesses adding 151,000 square feet of new commercial space as well as renovating another 94,000 square feet of previously vacant commercial space.
“Our Planning Board is super-professional,” he said. “The Comprehensive Plan provided for 12 percent more commercial space and improved the buildout by about 30 percent. The design of the Hannaford Plaza is such that the viewshed was protected, so the commercial buildings are not right on the highway.”

Kinderhook Town Supervisor Doug McGivney recently spoke to the Register-Star about his terms as the town’s top official and the accomplishments of his time in office.
McGivney reflects on terms, accomplishments as supervisor According to McGivney, this added $30 million to the town’s taxable property. Another of McGivney’s proud accomplishments includes the voluntary boundary expansion of Lindenwald National Park which, in the future, will hopefully recreate Martin Van Buren’s original farm. “The Republicans were against it, but with the help of (Kirsten) Gillibrand and Hilary (Clinton) we got it done.” said McGivney. “It makes a much better tourist attraction, fits in with the agricultural community and provides money to spend in Kinderhook.” McGivney also supported farmers’ requests for sale of development rights and preserved, in perpetuity, through public and private funds, approximately 1,000 acres of farmland for open space. Accomplishments aside, McGivney has had a few disappointments during his tenure as supervisor. “I’ve always been upset we were never able to get a pool,” he said. “I think we need a swimming facility somewhere in Columbia County, not just for the youth but for seniors as well.” By far his biggest disappointment has been his inability to bring about a long-term purchasing plan with the surrounding fire departments. “I am worried about public safety,” he said. “There’s rivalries between
fire companies plus the political situation between the village and the town of Stuyvesant taking away money they’ve given to the village is neither based on safety or common sense. It’s basically a money grab from one fire department not working with the rest,” he said. “I’m hoping all the fire companies involved will work together on planning coverage and long-term purchasing.”

So, what’s next for McGivney?

“I’m going to take a long vacation,” he said. “And then I’ll get back to practicing law again, and hope to do some pro-bono work for those that need it.” An avid runner, he also hopes to increase his running and spend more time with his wife Barbara; his two daughters, Mary Kate and Tracey; and his four grandchildren. “Doug worked 18 hours a day every day for 10 years,” said Barbara McGivney. “He gave an awful lot of time to the town. One thing I know, whatever he does now, he will always be involved in politics.” To reach reporter Robert Lachman, call 518-828-1616, ext. 2266, or e-mail rlachman@registerstar.com.

Kinderhook's Town Board December Meeting

2010-01-06T14:36:00.000-08:00

Doug' Last Town Board MeetingWednesday, December 16, 2009 8:49 AM EST

There was standing room only at Kinderhook's December meeting. As reported by Robert Lachman of the Register Star:

It was the last hurrah for Kinderhook Town Supervisor Doug McGivney Monday night as he presided over his final Kinderhook Town Board meeting. It was a bittersweet moment for many in the audience and for McGivney. Before the meeting started, state Assemblyman Tim Gordon, I-Bethlehem, presented McGivney with a proclamation from the State Assembly in the form of a plaque, listing many of McGivney’s accomplishments during his 10 years as supervisor.

Mark Leinung, a representative from the Governor’s Office, also presented McGivney with a letter signed by Gov. David Paterson which read, in part: “... On behalf of all New Yorkers accept my profound appreciation for your exemplary work.”

After the laudatory celebrations the board got down to business for the last time this year.
Councilman Peter Bujanow discussed a proposal that’s in the works that would help meet Paterson’s 45-15 energy strategy for the state. “The New York Power Authority has initiated a plan for offering municipalities a 100 megawatt solar photovoltaic system that will allow a municipality to put in solar power for energy. It’s part of the governor’s plan for 45 percent self-sufficiency by 2015,” he said. According to Bujanow, the state provides municipalities with all the equipment at a fixed price that will be paid off over 20 years. He also explained there is a new general municipal law that provides loans to property owners for energy self-sufficient measures. “The town of Bedford in Westchester did it in 2007. It allows towns to get government funds and they add it to the tax bill,” he said. “I visualize with the current technology we could cut our bills in half in five years,” McGivney said. “There’s
been a lot of thought by the legislature going into this.”

The next item of business echoed what the village of Kinderhook has been dealing with recently — outdoor wood boilers. Unlike the village, which just passed a law outlawing any new OWBs, the town took a more measured approach in its draft proposal. “We decided not to outlaw them,” Bujanow said, “but to to restrict their design.” He also said the OWB situation is on a moratorium until February.

Finally, the fire district dispute with the town of Stuyvesant came up and McGivney discussed how the negotiations had gone smoothly for awhile and had reached an impasse.
“In talking with (Kinderhook Village Mayor Bill) Van Alstyne he doesn’t see any movement from Stuyvesant,” he said. He also made a final comment after the meeting had ended on the supposed feud between Van Alstyne and himself. “I’m still disappointed that discord still exists with the village. Village taxpayers who are also town taxpayers get the short end of the stick and I’m hoping that the Fire Committee will be able to address the problem in the future,” he said.

As the meeting closed board members thanked McGivney for all his hard work with Deputy Supervisor Debbie Johnson praising his dedication and hard work.

Last Hoorah !

2010-01-06T14:16:00.000-08:00

NEWS
Grattan unseats McGivney
By Paul Crossman , from Register Star

November 4th, 2009

Long-time Supervisor Doug McGivney, though unhappy with the results, took the loss well, even driving over to shake hands and congratulate the new supervisor.

“It looks like this is my last hoorah,” McGivney told a crowd of his supporters after the results came in. “I had a good run, and it’s been fun. I really thought we would do better, our team has been fantastic.” He went on to say that he wishes his competition the best of luck, and plans to do everything he can to help Grattan get started as supervisor, making a point to say that the loss of the election did not diminish his interest in the town.

Please watch the League of Women Voters Debate

2009-10-31T20:01:00.000-07:00

2009-10-14T08:22:00.001-07:00

The A Team and the Common Sense Party

The new faces:

Todd DiGrigoli

Helen Schneider

Both are interested in Youth Development and are already active in Town Recreation Programs. Helen is a member of the Town Recreation Commission and is teaching drama and stage craft to young people. Todd is a Soccer coach.

Our Message is Simple:

Continue the the work already begun: finishing sidewalks and trails, obtaining solar power, creating a Youth Center, starting a "dog run"and Community Garden; within Common Sense budgetary constraints.

With the new energy and enthuisasm of Todd and Helen, combined with their interest in young people, a Youth Center can be accomplished. By harnessing the spirit of volunteerism, like that brought to the renovation of the South Building by the Tri Village Seniors, the youth center can be established in a restored North Building. Like the Seniors, volunteers can paint, clean and furnish a suitable area to be used by our youth - with parent volunteers to furnish an adult presence.

The Experience is furnished by incumbents:Doug McGivney, Supervisor andHighway Superintendent John Ruchel.

This year the much needed Highway Building complex was added to the many facilities created built or obtained by this administration.

This building is a needed addition to all the buildings, parks, ball diamonds, hoops and play areas already brought into existence by this administration. Photos of those prior accomplishments are shown on different postings.

Justice Natalie Kolb has served her first term as Town Justice and is known for having an organized and orderly court. She introduced computers into the local court processes and obtained a large grant from the Office of Court Administration.

Other goals are already works-in-progress. The Town has obtained a very large grant for an off road trail, one of many phases that is part of a plan adopted a few years ago. The side walk link between the Villages of Valatie and Kinderhook is already funded and is in the Engineering/Access stage. The side walk link continues the sidewalk previously built between the Round About and Valatie Main Steet.

The Common Sense Banner:

By filing an Independent Nominating Petition the Line A, Democratic candidates, gained another banner, according to Doug McGivney, candidate for Kinderhook Supervisor”. That petition was signed by over 400 people, many of whom are not enrolled in any party. In making this announcement, Francis McKearin said, “this gives the voters a chance to truly ’vote for the person’ not the party”. In addition, said McKearin, “fact-based decision making is the goal of “Common Sense” and needs to be applied to all government determinations”.

Another response to Mayor Strevells Press Releas

2009-10-14T08:10:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter to the Register Star editor:
Following that on this blog is my full explanation of my and/or Town of Kinerhook role.

Francis Vecellio
9 Rothermel Avenue
Kinderhook, NY 12106

October 13, 2009

Register Star
364 Warren St.
Hudson, NY 12534

To the Editor:

I read with amusement Mayor Gary Strevell’s attempt to shift blame for the Valatie Senior Center fiasco to Kinderhook Supervisor Doug McGivney. Let’s see what would have had to occur for McGivney to have been responsible:

First, Doug would have had to force the Village Board to threaten to use an imminent domain proceeding to acquire the old post office from private developers. Then, he would have had to force village officials to sign a grant application swearing that the grant money would be used for an exclusive senior center and to not use the funds for municipal purposes – when an established senior center already exists on State Farm Road. When the rehabilitation of the post office was complete, Doug would have to have ordered the firing of the volunteer senior center coordinator and carted off the furniture donated for the center for storage in order to make room for village court equipment and furnishings. In order to flaunt the misappropriation of public funds, Doug would have had to have ordered the erection of street signs around the village directing drivers to village court at the senior center.

Does the Mayor really believe anyone would buy his nonsense?

Either the Mayor and Village Board were poorly advised by the village attorney, who now seeks a promotion to control town affairs, or they chose to ignore his advice and risk being caught defrauding the state and senior citizens in some other community who could have benefited from a full-time senior center.

I know for a fact that Supervisor McGivney interceded in behalf of the taxpayers of the village and encouraged state officials to find a solution which would not require the repayment of the $400,000 grant. If the Mayor were a more responsible person, he would be thanking Supervisor McGivney and apologizing to village taxpayers for putting them at risk. Then again, if he were such a person, the entire episode would never have occurred.

Sincerely,

Francis Vecellio
Kinderhoook

758-1683 or 929-0005

Response to Mayor Strevell's Comments onValatie Senior Center

2009-10-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

This is response to the press release by Village of Valatie Mayor Gary Strevell, and published in the Register Star.

The following are the facts, as compared to Gary’s rant:

1. I did not oppose the grant. Neither was I asked to support.
2. I did not try to get the state to revoke the grant.
3. I did not demand that Valatie remove may name.

4. I did offer to help.

That offer was to be conveyed to Mayor Strevell by Mr. Rabito. Mayor Strevell never contacted me. Mr. Grattan did contact me to explore ideas, but there was no follow up. I did not want the Valatie Tax payers to return the $ 400,000.00 and stated such to all that asked including Mr. Rabito.

5. I did meet once with Mr. Rabito.

That occurred – last March or April, in the company of Tri Village Seniors representatives and the RS (Paul Crossman).

6. I did contact the State ..

when the sign indicated that I, as Supervisor for the Town of Kinderhook, supported and sponsored the grant. I did not call Mr. Rabito, as I did not know him at the time. I did state that I was never asked to support nor was the Town Board of Kinderhook neither asked for support nor asked to sponsor the facility. If I had been asked at the time of the grant application, I am sure I would have echoed the sentiments of Dottie Ostrowski, President of the Tri Village Seniors club. She was contacted by a Valatie official and she said no, as Tri Village Seniors had a center. Her response was not mentioned in the grant application although the grant application indicates that the Tri Village Seniors supported it. Shortly after relaying the truth of the matter to NYS my name was removed.

As is apparent from Mayor Strevell’s statement to the Register Star and on the Valatie Web Site, and even statements attributed to other Village officials there is no real intent to operate a Senior Center, as envisioned by the grant application. Village officials hope NYS will stop policing its use by signing the Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor Strevell and Attorney Patrick Grattan are apparently ignorant of the law which provides that for five (5) years they are subject to the pay back and other remedies if they stray from providing the services they have promised. The annual debt service on the $ 120,000.00 Valatie borrowed for the center and the cost of operation of all the activities promised by the grant application and law governing same will be a tremendous burden on the Valatie taxpayers.

The lack of a population base of a size to support the center is a recipe for failure. Remember this is not just a place for seniors to gather – like Kinderhook’s Dottie Ostrowski Center, it is a full time and full service operation for poor seniors. The Village officials in order to qualify for the grant had to offer a full time and full service facility that provided congregate meals and other services for needy seniors. In order to get the grant, Valatie’s grant includes Barnwell and Valatie Woods Residents in its service population. Valatie Wood’s residence have a meeting place and receive “Meals on Wheels” that serves many of its residents and they like the program of meals delivered to their door. Barnwell residents receive “congregate meals” as part of the cost of residence. There are only 62 seniors in the Village of Valatie that receive Enhanced Star exemptions. How many of them want regular “congregate meals”? There has been no survey to determine this, but it is doubted that many want regular congregate meals. Those who want meals get them from the Town and County “Meals on Wheels” program. Mr. Grattan’s claim of 333 rental units seems very high, unless Valatie Woods and Barnwell are counted. Even if there were 333 rental units, not counting Barnwell and Valatie Woods all would have to house seniors desiring all the services offered in this full service facility. The grant, after all was $ 400,000. That kind of money is not given for just a part time gathering place.

The reference to other non-compliant grant recipients by Mayor Strevell is disingenuous; as he fails to disclose is that Valatie’s grant writer Mr. Kirk also obtained those grants. Mr. Kirk had special access to former Governor Pataki’s Office of Small City Grants Program. The Grant Program was even operated out of the Governor’s Second floor offices.

It is ironic for Mayor Strevell to accuse me of “politics” when this grant was announced by former Congressman Sweeney just before an election; was granted by the politically motivated second floor of the Governor Pataki offices, and the grant lacked basic detail like proof of community support from seniors or other Town of County officials. The public hearings heard only from seniors that opposed the application. That opposition was not addressed in the grant application. The numbers of seniors to be served does not exist – but on the grant application. Village residents have to ask themselves, how did we get here? How much will it cost to continue? $120,000.00 has already been borrowed and the village tax rate just went up $0.60 per thousand – way more than Kinderhook Village which was lower to begin with.

What ever happens, I am willing to work on a solution. I previously offered to help through the one meeting I had with Mr. Rabito. Unfortunately, the Valatie leadership continues to think it can use the facility for a village hall and court room as soon as the State turns its back. Already it is paying salaries for the limited services it does offer.

Proposal by Electrical firms for Licensing Law

2009-10-11T18:33:00.000-07:00

This is in response to the letter written for the Register Star by Jack Scheriff, an electrician, on behalf of a local group of electrical contractors. Licensing of electricians is an old issue that has been urged by the same group several times over the years. It has been refused by the Columbia County Board of Supervisors each time. It has been raised twice during my terms. It provides for a County administrated “licensing” program. In my view, it is designed to protect large electrical contractors from competition and duplicates existing laws requiring underwriting approval of all electrical work.

I have heard two presentations and each begins with the “unfairness” of competition from electricians from other counties or states that require licenses. I am surprised that attorney Patrick Grattan supports this proposal. As described by a very good electrician and friend of mine- the urged legislation is an attempt by a “good old boys” network of large electrical firms to limit competition. The proposal conveniently allows “grandfather status” for the group’s members without testing or required education. If passed, a new bureaucracy would be created; positions would be needed to keep track of the licensing and all the other organizational red tape that goes with licensing legislation. It is ironic that this group is saying: “Help, please regulate us”! Usually these same people urge that there is too much government regulation.

This licensing law would, in my opinion, be too much regulation. It duplicates the current statutory scheme found in all Towns. A permit is required for building, remodeling and other construction work. The permit leads to inspections and, in the case of electrical work, written and certified approval by an independent under-writing organization. Those inspectors are certified and have training beyond having been in business a long time. This licensing law would make it hard for a young person to become an electrician. It would also prohibit homeowners from doing their own work – even if the person was a graduate electrical engineer.

Although I have again been singled out by this mostly Republican group, only Supervisor Thomas Diaz from Ancram recently urged adoption of this scheme. At the May meeting of the Legal Committee, attended by 5 Republican Supervisors and 2 Democratic Supervisors, the vote was 6 to 1 to table. At the July meeting, the motion to "abolish the process of creating an electrical licensing law" was passed by the full Legal Committee which consists of 7 Republicans and 3 Democrats. All but Supervisor Dias voted for the motion. In addition, many people and small contractors have expressed opposition to this legislation. Presumably other Supervisors have received the same message, I am only one vote. In the past this legislation was also rejected by the local association of building inspectors.

Does Mr. Grattan really support this added bureaucracy and increased taxes it represents? This partisan attack by Mr. Scheriff contains false information. I have never seen a 300 signature petition nor photos of shoddy work. I am sure this group would have little trouble producing such photos!

Mr. Scheriff refers to a quote of Presiden Martin Van Buren, who he correctly refers to as another Kinderhook Democrat. I do not understand his quote in this context. Mr. Scheriff's scolds me and by inference those Republican and Democratic Supervisor that do not agree with him. A more apt quote from our famous Democratic President is: Most men are not scolded out of their opinion".

The Common Sense Party

2009-09-18T19:23:00.000-07:00

About the Common Sense Party:

By filing an Independent Nominating Petition the Line A, Democratic candidates, gained another banner. That petition was signed by over 400 people, many of whom are not enrolled in any party. This gives the voters a chance to “vote for the person’ not the party”. Fact-based decision making is the goal of “Common Sense Party”.

Senior Housing - Independent Living, Adult Care .....

2009-09-13T19:44:00.000-07:00

Senior Housing

There is a need for fact based, common sense decision making. The following are the facts that lead to a common sense determination.

The Town of Kinderhook’s Comprehensive Plan and Town Code address the need for senior housing and offers incentives such as a “density bonus” for such development. In addition, the Town Board readily agreed to a PILOT with a developer of low to moderate income senior housing, such as that found at Valatie Woods. Columbia County’s Strategic Plan specifically addresses this need and foresees this need, not as a burden, but an economic opportunity. Serving retiring seniors is becoming more and more of a growth industry.

Mr. DeVito has submitted studies and plans. Among the important details is an offer of up to $ 500,000.00 toward fixing the Valatie Sewage plant. This is a publically recognized need going back to a 2004 Engineering study. Even without the study the smell of the dysfunctional system is evident on many occasions. A 2004 study calls for well over 1 million dollars in repairs. It is unbelievable that the Valatie officials would hide both the need and a potential solution from the public and especially its own taxpayers. The expressed concern by Pat Grattan and Mayor Strevell for Philmont’s $60,000.00 per year sewage payments is amazing compared to Valatie’s Million dollar need. Valatie could reimburse Philmont and still come out ahead! Without the sewage flow into the Philmont Plant its costs would be less.

As to why a business man would choose Kinderhook over Philmont is easily answered. Mr. DeVito needs to sell units in his complex and amenities found in Kinderhook are not available in Philmont. For example, Kinderhook has 33 physicians, other medical care services at VMA, and several local dentists. As to living style we have two libraries, several historical museums and other historical buildings as well as convenient shopping, sidewalks, many good restaurants and other amenities. Philmont has one physician, a Stewarts and one very fine restaurant.

Also, from a business standpoint the following tax-facts lead to only one conclusion: Kinderhook is better for business.

Tax Comparisons:

Philmont - $ 9.46 per thousand
Valatie - $ 2.21 per thousand

Clavarack Town’s
tax rate in Philmont $ 0.91
Kinderhook Town’s tax rate in Valatie $ 0.57

School tax rates
Philmont $ 18.38
Kinderhook $12.58

Although known for a long time by Valatie officials, a July 10th letter from Mr. DeVito making that half million dollar offer. I am informed that Mayor Strevell and Attorney Pat Grattan have not agreed to meet Mr. DeVito and have had no response. In addition, the added real estate taxes on this profit making venture would help the tax base of Valatie Village, the Town, County and School. School taxes are generally our highest taxes in Columbia County. Senior Residences do not put additional kids in schools and do not add to the cost of operation.

I am very disappointed by the determination of the CC BOS Philmont subcommittee to shelve the DeVito project and proceed with a Certificate of Need process on a $27,000,000.00 building project in Philmont. It was both premature and based upon misinformation. Mr. DeVito has not agreed to build the Senior Housing in Valatie without nursing home beds. This means that the taxpayers of the Village of Valatie are out $ 500,000.00 toward the renovation of their failing sewage system. Valatie Village officials have been misleading by not mentioning that offer to the public.

Like the Valatie people, the Philmont Subcommittee was misled by the idea that Mr. DeVito can and will build senior housing without nursing home beds.

The facts presented by Mr. DeVito have not been fully explored. His offerings show savings of over $ 800,000.00 per year to the taxpayers of the county. Even if half or a quarter of that it is still a savings that is better than the annual subsidizing of the Philmont Nursing Home, which is currently budgeted at over $ 500,000.00 for 2009. Many years it is a million and a half.

Not only is the determination premature, it ignores and does nothing about the County’s Strategic plan which has determined the need for senior housing. Instead it has determined to proceed with the NYS Health Department for a Certificate of Need to build a multimillion dollar nursing home at Philmont. All of this was determined in the worst economic times since the Great Depression and while we are struggling with hiring freezes and trying to cope with budget short falls.

Common Sense demands a thorough review of the options; as well as public information concerning the information presented by Mr. DeVito on behalf of the project named the Concordia Project.

　
　

The Kinderhook A Team

2009-09-06T18:50:00.001-07:00

Experience and New Ideas

The new faces:

Todd DiGrigoli
Helen Schneider

Both are interested in Youth Development and are already active in Town Recreation Programs. Helen is a member of the Town Recreation Commission and is teaching drama and stage craft to young people. Todd is a Soccer coach.

The A Team and the Common Sense Party

Our Message is Simple:

Continue the the work already begun: finishing sidewalks and trails, obtaining solar power, creating a Youth Center, starting a "dog run"and Community Garden; within Common Sense budgetary constraints.

The Experience is furnished by incumbents:

Doug McGivney, Supervisor and
Highway Superintendent John Ruchel.

This year the much needed Highway Building complex was added to the many facilities created built or obtained by this administration.

This building is a needed addition to all the buildings, parks, ball diamonds, hoops and play areas already brought into existence by this administration. Photos of those prior accomplishments are shown on different postings.

Justice Natalie Kolb has served her first term as Town Justice and is known for having an organized and orderly court. She introduced computers into the local court processes and obtained a large grant from the Office of Court Administration.

Other goals are already works-in-progress. The Town has obtained a very large grant for an off road trail, one of many phases that is part of a plan adopted a few years ago. The side walk link between the Villages of Valatie and Kinderhook is already funded and is in the Engineering/Access stage. The side walk link continues the sidewalk previously built between the Round About and Valatie Main Steet.

The Common Sense Banner:
“By filing an Independent Nominating Petition the Line A, Democratic candidates, gained another banner, according to Doug McGivney, candidate for Kinderhook Supervisor”. That petition was signed by over 400 people, many of whom are not enrolled in any party. In making this announcement, Francis McKearin said, “this gives the voters a chance to truly ’vote for the person’ not the party”. In addition, said McKearin, “fact-based decision making is the goal of “Common Sense” and needs to be applied to all government determinations”.

Table of Contents with posting date

2009-09-06T15:43:00.000-07:00

Table of Contents:

Political Post Date
Reasons to Continue as Supervisor 8/15/09
The Kinderhook A Team 8/15/09
Personal Background and Resume About Us
Common Sense 9/6/09
Congressman Murphy’s Town Hall 8/22/09
Personal
Maymie’s 100th Birthday 8/22/09
State Fair – Abby’s Blue Ribbon 9/5/09
Our Family and Photos 8/15/09

State Fair 2009, Syracuse, NY

2009-09-06T06:13:00.000-07:00

Our First State Fair - August 2009

Granddaughter Abby, age 10, was a competitor in the 4 H Horse Show. She had won many Blue Ribbons in Clinton County, but the competition was much tougher in Syracuse. In the morning round of events, she received no recognition or awards. In the afternoon, both sets of Grandparents as well as daughter Tracey, her husband Craig, Sister Courtney and Aunt Melissa watched the last “Hunt, Pleasure. Pony” junior competition with a degree of anxiety. There were 26 competitors. She made the first “cut” and then the final 10. Each of the final 10 received awards and they were called out starting with number 10 who then left the ring. We went thru 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2 and finally only Abby was left in the ring. She had won and received the Blue Ribbon! he photos show our family and Abby, as she sat on her pony “Little Bit”

Taxes

2009-09-05T14:19:00.000-07:00

Real Estate Taxes are complicated and too high. The smallest part of Real Estate Taxes is the Town Government. For example:

2009 Town of Kinderhook Tax Rate:

$1.28 per thousand outside of the Villages,
$0.59 per thousand in the Villages.

As a comparison,

Village of Valatie $2.69 per thousand
Village of Kinderhook $2.52 per thousand.

Excluded from the Village taxes are the special district charges for water and sewage user fees which are in addition to the Real Estate Tax. The Town has an Ambulance District, a lighting distict and two fire districts with separate funds and are not included in the above. On the Columbia County website at:

http://www.columbiacountyny.com/depts/rps/rates.html

are all the taxes for the towns, county, villages, school districts and special districts.

The reason the Town Real Estate Tax is less in the Villages is because Village residents pay into the “A Fund” only. They do not pay into the “B Fund” or “DB Fund”. The DB fund is for highways and the Villages are responsible for the care of its streets and roads. The “B Fund” also applies only to activities outside of the villages such as Land Use issues of Zoning, planning etc.

This year the tax per thousand increased 0.08 per thousand in the A Fund, known as the “general fund”. The tax increase in the B and DB funds were $ 0.03 per thousand and $0.31 per thousand respectfully. As can be seen the biggest increase has been in the Highway fund which has gone from 22 cents per thousand to 53 cents per thousand.
There are many reasons for the increase but the main reason is the lack of an unexpended fund balance. Unexpended fund balances result from spending less than budgetted or receiving more income than expected. For the past 8 years or so we saw ever increasing sales and mortgage recording taxes, the result of which was the ability to stabilize and in most years reduce the tax rate. In 2008. not only did that not happen, but fuel costs drove up everything the highway department does. Additional costs associated with the new highway building also helped to use up our “rainy day” or unexpended fund balances. Not only have taxes increased as shown above but the expectation of funds becomes critical to our cash flow. Although, taxes are received in January and February, sales tax revenue and mortgage recording tax revenue are quarterly and twice a year respectively.

Other municipalities may have similar situations. For example, out tax rate in the areas outside of the town increased $0.50 per thousand, whereas the Village of Valatie increased its tax rate by $0.60 per thousand.

The Murphy town hall at Golden Harvest

2009-08-22T08:52:00.000-07:00

These people when asked, readily admitted to being from Gloversville, Cohoes and Troy.

Other photos of note.

Where was John Sweeney?

2009-08-22T08:48:00.001-07:00

1 Nasty Letter in
Register Star about the event 8 22 09
This is to correct the letter to the editor of the Register Star by Walter Brooks. First, I did not say and do not remember saying the words attributed to me. If I did say anything that offended anyone, I apologize. The incident as it unfolded was the following: When leaving the Congressman Murphy’s town hall presentation, I stopped to take a picture of a friend and his sign. Mr. Brooks in a very angry manner got in my face and spewed anger about “race”. He used the f-word repeatedly to which I tried not to react. If I offended anyone, I apologize, as that is not my wishes or style even when provoked. Walter is in the yellow shirt carrying his sign which said “No Obama Care” The other photo is of Mr. Brooks at the rally.

Maymie's 100th Birthday and part of extended family

2009-08-22T05:59:00.000-07:00

Barbara's mother, known to all as "Maymie", celebrated her 100th birthday at Winding Brook Country Club. Friends and relatives came from as far away as Seattle. Several were from Minnesota where Maymie was born. He amazing life, witnessing Baby Face Nelson shooting and robbing the Brainerd Bank, voting for 14 presidents (Seeing 19 Presidents), traveling to Albany to marry her high school sweet heart, and currently winning the family football pool, cheering on her favorite Manning boys, from whom she received birthday greetings, a signed Giants football, and team jersey.

Our Family

2009-08-15T20:35:00.000-07:00

Married to Barbara, a Registered Nurse for many years; recently retired from nursing to teach private piano lessons. We have two daughters Tracey and MaryKate, both of whom graduated from Ichabod Crane Central School. We have three grand daughters, JaimeLynn, Courtney, Abby and a grand son, Colby Douglas. We are communicants of St. Johns Roman Catholic Church in Valatie where we taught Sunday school for 7 years. I am a past member of the Parish Council.

Doug's Future Plans - reasons to continue

2009-08-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

“I would like to continue the work we have begun: finishing the sidewalks and trails, obtaining solar power, starting a ‘Dog Run’, Community Garden and creating a Youth Center. With two new Town Board members, Todd and Helen I am sure the progress will continue. With our volunteers and a little stimulus money we can do it all.”

Experience
&
Accomplishments

This term, the Town completed the much needed highway garage, a worthy addition to pictured facilities.

None of these facilities and structures existed before this Administration.

Future Plans and Activities

We are now working on a

- Dog Run:

- a young adult center;

- a community garden

- obtaining solar power for three of our buildings.

The solar power is an incremental step of creating a Kinderhook Power Authority.

The real challenge will be continue accomplishments without past revenue streams like sales tax and mortgage recording taxes. With our volunteers and a little stimulas money we can do it all. With new talent from new people like Helen Schneider and Todd DiGrigoli, I am confident we can move forward in these financially times.